get_field_details

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does convey that this is a read-only information retrieval and specifies the categories of information returned, but it remains silent on failure behavior, authentication requirements, or whether relationship details are recursive or limited.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource and then lists the returned attribute categories. No filler or repeated schema information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned details is a reasonable completeness signal. However, it would be more complete with a note about the tool's relationship to find_relationships or about error handling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema documentation covers 100% of parameters with clear definitions ('API name of the field' and 'API name of the object'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further parameter-level guidance such as naming conventions or required format.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action ('Get detailed information about a specific field') with a concrete resource domain and enumerates the informational payload (type, length, formula, picklist values, relationships). This clearly separates it from list_fields and get_object_details by focusing on a single field's metadata.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when an agent needs detailed metadata for one named field, but it never names alternatives or exclusion conditions. Sibling tools like list_fields, find_relationships, and get_object_details overlap in surface area, so explicit routing would help.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.